Is Angelo Crowell a reasonable prospect at MLB?

[GG]

Let's at least try to stay with reality here:

 

1. Crowell played MLB for the Bills in an actual game when he filled in for one of the brief periods F-B got hurt in a game in 05 against TB I think. Further, he was F-Bs, back-up at MLB his first two years for the Bills. You might be referring to Crowell never playing MLB in a Cover 2 just as Willis has never done. However, this comparison completely looks past the fact that Crowell did play LB in the Bills Cover 2 last year and even did some signal calling from the wing position.

 

I think the biggest beef people have with your reasoning (other than trying to find a point among 3,000 words) is that although Crowell played MLB in college, was supposed to be the heir apparent at MLB, and as you say saw actual NFL action as MLB - was promptly pulled from that position by his coaches.

 

Yet, you continue to evangelize Crowell's status as the MLB of the future and how he is a better candidate for the position, even though he was once removed from that position. It helps your cause to throw in the Cover-2 logic behind it, as if you or most people on this board understand exactly how Cover 2 will allow him to shed blocks better and attack a ball carrier closer than 6 yards away from the LoS.

 

Thus, you have ZERO idea of whether a rookie will not be able to do the job better than Crowell, other than have a firm belief that somehow Crowell will do it better than he did before.

 

Maybe typing another 3,000 words will have other believers.

[obie_wan]

I think the biggest beef people have with your reasoning (other than trying to find a point among 3,000 words) is that although Crowell played MLB in college, was supposed to be the heir apparent at MLB, and as you say saw actual NFL action as MLB - was promptly pulled from that position by his coaches.

 

Yet, you continue to evangelize Crowell's status as the MLB of the future and how he is a better candidate for the position, even though he was once removed from that position. It helps your cause to throw in the Cover-2 logic behind it, as if you or most people on this board understand exactly how Cover 2 will allow him to shed blocks better and attack a ball carrier closer than 6 yards away from the LoS.

 

Thus, you have ZERO idea of whether a rookie will not be able to do the job better than Crowell, other than have a firm belief that somehow Crowell will do it better than he did before.

 

Maybe typing another 3,000 words will have other believers.

 

gotta agree.

 

Crowell played inside in a 3-4 in college - not MLB.

 

when he backed up fletcher 2 years ago, the Bills were not playing the cover 2- so all the fine points of dropping in deep zone were not being applied at the time.

 

Willis is the key to the Bills draft. they will seriously consider moving up to #10 to get him before SF does.

[Arkady Renko]

Brevity is the soul of a post I will read.

[Dawgg]

Crowell would be exposed as a middle linebacker.

 

Not a good idea. I think the first round is very simple this year and if Marv manages to get cute for the second year in a row, I'll be shocked:

 

1) If Adrian Peterson miraculously falls to #12, pick him.. if he's not available proceed to (2).

 

2) Take the best defensive player available in the following order: Patrick Willis, Omobi Okoye. If neither are available proceed to (3)

 

3) TRADE DOWN and pick up an extra 2nd round pick. In the absolute worst case and no trade is available, move to (4)

 

4) Consider taking Leon Hall. If this happens, move to (5)

 

5) Feel the Wrath of Bill NYC!

[Pyrite Gal]

gotta agree.

 

Crowell played inside in a 3-4 in college - not MLB.

 

when he backed up fletcher 2 years ago, the Bills were not playing the cover 2- so all the fine points of dropping in deep zone were not being applied at the time.

 

Willis is the key to the Bills draft. they will seriously consider moving up to #10 to get him before SF does.

 

And JP got pulled at QB year before last so he should not have been put back in as he got better.

 

Past performance is of course indicative of future activity but it easily can be surpassed by a player gaining experience. The argument that a player did not cut it in one game the first time he played the position as a pro simply does not in and of itself invalidate his ability to do better in the same position later.

 

The major difference is that in the two years since Crowell has gotten experience and stacked up some accomplishments reflected in him producing tackles, sacks, and INTs which placed him in the top 3 for defenders in each of these categories each year.

 

The opposing argument offered to this is that Willis did well in his college D at MLB which also was not a Cover 2.

 

In terms of comparing the two approaches even if you reject my arguments as 3,000 words of drivel which does not apply it seems merely opposed with 25-40 words of drivel which do not apply.

 

Unfortunately I think even my long drivel stands fairly uncontroverted by the shorter drivel.

[Dawgg]

We don't need theoretical arguments to ascertain whether or not Crowell would make a good MLB. The simple fact of the matter is that we have seen him play over the course of the last two years and he doesn't have what it takes to man the middle at a high level of play.

 

Doest that mean he can't do it? No. He has done it before on a limited basis. But if you go back and watch the tape from last season, Crowell's tackling was often inconsistent. While he is generally a good hitter and can create some turovers, he is not the rock solid tackler that we need at the MLB position. Watch the JAX game or the TEN game and you will see what I mean.

 

Good Cover 2 defenses have studs at MLB. Urlacher, Brooks are perfect examples.

 

This team needs Patrick Willis so that Crowell can play on the outside, where he is better suited anyway.

 

Unfortunately I think even my long drivel stands fairly uncontroverted by the shorter drivel.

[dave mcbride]

We don't need theoretical arguments to ascertain whether or not Crowell would make a good MLB. The simple fact of the matter is that we have seen him play over the course of the last two years and he doesn't have what it takes to man the middle at a high level of play.

 

Doest that mean he can't do it? No. He has done it before on a limited basis. But if you go back and watch the tape from last season, Crowell's tackling was often inconsistent. While he is generally a good hitter and can create some turovers, he is not the rock solid tackler that we need at the MLB position. Watch the JAX game or the TEN game and you will see what I mean.

 

Good Cover 2 defenses have studs at MLB. Urlacher, Brooks are perfect examples.

 

This team needs Patrick Willis so that Crowell can play on the outside, where he is better suited anyway.

 

Brooks is not an MLB.

[bluv]

Past performance is of course indicative of future activity but it easily can be surpassed by a player gaining experience. The argument that a player did not cut it in one game the first time he played the position as a pro simply does not in and of

In one of your shortest post you made your best point that most tend to forget is that players can improve and get better; just because a player didn't perform up to expectations, especially a young player doesn't mean that he won't ever amount to anything in the future. Most don't have any patience whatsoever and want a team comprised entirely of proven Pro Bowl players. It just isn't going to happen. I'm glad I was too young and that this board wasn't running back when Bruce was drafted as he would have been labeled a bust after 2 seasons!

[Pyrite Gal]

We don't need theoretical arguments to ascertain whether or not Crowell would make a good MLB. The simple fact of the matter is that we have seen him play over the course of the last two years and he doesn't have what it takes to man the middle at a high level of play.

 

Doest that mean he can't do it? No. He has done it before on a limited basis. But if you go back and watch the tape from last season, Crowell's tackling was often inconsistent. While he is generally a good hitter and can create some turovers, he is not the rock solid tackler that we need at the MLB position. Watch the JAX game or the TEN game and you will see what I mean.

 

Good Cover 2 defenses have studs at MLB. Urlacher, Brooks are perfect examples.

 

This team needs Patrick Willis so that Crowell can play on the outside, where he is better suited anyway.

 

I guess the answer is that Patrick Willis is a nice theory as a pro MLB whom we fans hope and pray will work out even though there are few any examples of a rookie MLB being able to even play adequately at MLB given the diverse requirements for an MLB in a Cover 2.

 

I know I as a fan would love to here more than crickets chirping as a response to requests for examples of rookie MLBs who have brought improvements in team performance from their play.

 

I guess the theory is that:

 

a. Willis has a great rep as a tackling machine (though some scouting reports note that he sometimes over-pursues and misses too often tackles that he should make)

 

b. also showed great speed at the combine which should help his pass coverage ability (though a couple of times he got to show this speed doing an extraordinary job chasing down receivers who had toasted his pass coverage)

 

c. Jauron/Fewell are going to quite quickly coach this rookie up so that he does not fall prey noticeably to OC running plays which fool this rookie into taking a step back to deep cover when it actually is delayed draw or to get him to pinch in as he aggressively attacks the run only to find a speedy WR is running a post pattern into the deep middle

 

d. that even though it is quite likely that Crowell will be the signal caller as the only LB or safety with more than a year of NFL experience that we are going to not suffer any miscues in communicating across the field or making solid reads from the wing position of an OLB rather than being in the center of the field

 

and of course

 

e. Crowell is such an obviously inadequate player that folks fairly readily dismiss him as a potential MLB starter, but still see an LB unit built around a rookie at MLB, second year player Ellison at WLB and the decrepit Crowell at SLB is going to be a functional LB unit.

 

Yeah right. This is a great theory.

[Dawgg]

Don't get me wrong, I think Crowell is fantastic.. just think it would be doing him a disservice to move him to the middle because his strenghts match up well for the OLB position.

 

With him stepping into the starting lineup after Spikes' injury 2005, coupled with his year of starting experience last season IN THIS SYTEM, let's keep him where he is and let him build off that success!

 

e. Crowell is such an obviously inadequate player that folks fairly readily dismiss him as a potential MLB starter, but still see an LB unit built around a rookie at MLB, second year player Ellison at WLB and the decrepit Crowell at SLB is going to be a functional LB unit.

 

Yeah right. This is a great theory.